fallen verses

I wrote this for my other blog, ineffably.net, but I thought someone might find this of interest here as well.

I wonder, sometimes, if people don’t view the word “ineffable” in the same light that I do. If it may be seen as undesirable, a lack, a failing. In some ways, it is a failing–a failing in language to communicate something*. I don’t think this is a bad thing, I place it more in the category of the sublime*.

Perhaps as technology marches onward and carries into more facets of our lives, it is frightening to think there are aspects of existence that words cannot encompass. Despite the ability to use audio and video, the internet is still, largely a text-based medium, and as more and more of our lives become caught up in its web**, we limit and restrict that aspects of our lives that cannot fit within the framework.

I’m reading Poetry and Consciousness by C.K.Williams and he begins that essay with a similar point. Language does not have the capacity to describe some elements of life, viz. emotion. As he says, we can call something sadness or depression, we can describe what seems to be the physical experience of them, we can talk about the reasons and effects of these emotions, but language cannot describe of the emotion qua emotion. Ultimately emotions can be talked about, can be talked around, but can’t be talked. Ineffable***. We can say fear is a cold knot in the stomach, but that doesn’t include the sharp stabs of terror when that fear may be actualized before we can think. And even then, what is the experience of that fear?

People can be understood. the actions of large groups are easy to understand. groups don’t have the same level of choice and valuation that individuals have. But an individual is so much more difficult to encompass.

The experience of an other is something that exists outside the realm of words. Sure, we can impart categories to people as we do to emotions. They can be funny or smart or cynical. They can be blonde. They can be slender. They can enjoy Mexican cuisine. They use a lexicon that is individual but listable. Their Her**** hair can have the smell of faded roses when you first smell it in the morning.

So go ahead, describe the person you love. I’d bet you can come up with a lengthy list of traits and historical facts. And I’d go further to bet that, no matter the length, that list fails at explaining that person. To paraphrase Viktor Frankl: Love is what allows us to experience an other in their uniqueness. I wouldn’t call it their soul (because I am not religious), but perhaps their logos*.

And that is something about each of us that transcends the descriptive capacity of language. It is something that can only be experienced, and only then, through love.

* Ineffable; Sublime; Logos (though Anima may be as usable)

** See what I did there: it’s after my bedtime, bad puns are excusable.

*** Yes, my love of this word is irrational. Most words I love are smoother, more elegant. Ineffable, pronounced as it should be, is clumsy. It’s the sound of a sweatshirt, not the smooth glide of hand over satin-clad curves.

**** Screw being gender-neutral. This really isn’t gender neutral in its explanation, though it is in its essence.

While I assume most people who read these missives I send into the aether are well aware, I just want to put it out there again. Poetry Daily. Today’s is “User’s Guide to Physical Debilitation” by Paul Guest, and I found this snippet amusing:

When not an outright impossibility
or form of neurological science fiction,
sexual congress will either be with
tourists in the kingdom of your tragedy,
performing an act of sadistic charity…

I’m in ISSUE 2!!!!! Page 382!

(via Harriet)

Incidentally, since the contents of my site are licensed under a creative commons license, it was totally cool of them to use it. I’m not going to be uppity like some people were (about Issue 1, anyway).

link (via Poetry Hut Blog)

Maybe I’m the only one who isn’t familiar with Lewis Hyde, maybe not. I don’t recall having ever heard of him or his book The Gift. If that NYTimes piece is indicative of his views, I probably should look into it.

Intellectual property is a murky idea. How do you really “own” and idea? How can you hold it in your hand? Or lock it away in a safe? Really, the only way you can own an idea is to never express it. That only prevents people from hearing your idea, not from coming up with it on their own. And, I suppose in fairness, generally ideas are not what is copyrighted, but the expression thereof.

Now, increasingly in this wikied and hyperlinked world, it is so clear the debts we owe to other authors, other artists, both contemporary and historical. To think that we, without respect of the contributions of others to our thoughts, ideas, and expressions, should own them seems, I don’t know if arrogant is the right word, but something along those lines.

Perhaps it’s a warranted desire, though. Perhaps.

I mean, we all understand the reasons for property rights (I hope). And they remain valid for, say, sculptors or painters. What real difference is there between those and poetry or songwriting other than medium? There isn’t. Ultimately it comes down to being non-tangible. There is, fundamentally, an unlimited ability to split it among “consumers;” unlike some of my other favorite things (viz. chocolate. that there is a limited supply of chocolate is a tragedy).

How do you reconcile these two ideas: infinite supply (or, at least, supply limited only by difficulty in sharing which increasingly approaches zero) and wanting to control and live doing creative work?

I’m not sure where that balance point is. On the one hand is the hobbyist artist (as I think many of us are) and the other is the professional artist. I don’t know if both can be the beneficiary of a intellectual property theory. As Lessig claims, restrictive copyright laws prevent creative arts that involve using other works, or reduces them all to using old works. That really hits contemporary creative conversations. On the other end, paid work gets more difficult to accomplish in the face of it being unprotected.

It’s tough when both sides have effective arguments and are largely irreconcilable.

Complain loudly enough, and the mountain will move for you (via Poetry Hut Blog).

Or, if not mountains, you can squelch free speech and artistic expression that does not match with your iron-age belief system. Maybe it’s just me, but it seems the “moderate christians” should be with the people standing up against this. If that group wants to play in the modern world, they need to invigorate the Jesus 3.0. The 1.0 guy has been dead for a long time, the 2.0 guy is a bigot and needs to shut up. Jesus 3.0 is the opportunity to look for the positive things faith can add to the world (if you believe there are any), rather than the fear and intolerance bandied about by the vocally religious.

Just when you think the world maybe has a chance, you keep seeing stuff like this. Makes me sad.

[ EDIT: poll no longer in progress, thanks everyone who voted! ]
Mashable Open Web Awards

Er, yeah, once per site per email address. I know I’ve got a few email addresses. Get to Work!

This is me not working on my NaNoWriMo project. Video from here about this. Usual caveat that if you see a gray bar, click it.

It didn’t take too much of that talk for me to understand it and realize I’ve been doing it wrong in a lot of my creative endeavors recently. In writing, or in my oft-neglected visual media, I get very goal-focused. I spend too much time thinking about the end product and I miss out on a lot of the things that makes creativity and art so wonderful which is the surprise that comes of it.

I haven’t been participating in many of the read write prompts for a while, but Nathan’s prompt and Dana’s Read Write Word were excellent prompts for me and, I think, are some of the better pieces I’ve written recently. Why? Why were those good but the image prompts escaping me? Why is Read Write Word 2 not as inspiring?

I think it has to do with being in that second form of play: building. The original prompts had so much to start with it was very neat to me to start pulling them apart and putting them back together. The first Wordle had thirty words, which I used only a portion of. The other prompts become more like the first type of play, the exploration. With so few options at our disposal, it becomes more about how many things can be done with a paper clip. And that is a situation where having knowledge gets in the way. If you don’t know what a paper-clip is, there’s no preconception, there’s nothing telling you can’t be… um… something else. Once you know, just by looking at it you wouldn’t see it as an element of wire sculpture, but once you’re holding them and molding them and twisting them together, you can build the new ideas that you would never have thought of.

Which is not to say that any type of creativity is better than any other. Seems to me they all fit different style and suit different purposes. But as a creative individual (or someone pretentious enough to cal myself one) all of these things are aspects. Some aspects may be strengths and things I should develop. Some things are weaknesses and should be avoided or worked on.

This NaNoWriMo experience is teaching me many things. I do not work as well from a blank page as I do from a full one, even if the full one is full of random nonsense things. When I was younger I used to draw (poorly). Then, I was more of a LEGO kid. It suited me better having chaos as a starting point than openness, I guess. Anyway, what are your thoughts on playing as artists and wordsmiths? How do we take those styles of play and put them into our writing practices?

That means it’s made up. It’s not real. Sure some of it is based on my life and people I’ve met; have to get ideas somewhere and all that.”

It’s difficult to get people to believe that when you inadvertently start typing a real name where the character name is supposed to be. I’ll have to remember to do a global search before anyone sees this thing called a novel(-to-be).

The urge to procrastinate is really strong, and it isn’t being outweighed by the perception of brilliant prose, so… Anyway, pictures! Well, icons. from here.