A paranoid exercise in nonsense

By Mackers · Mar 2, 2014 · ·
  1. I'm confused. This may not even be a conundrum of emotion but a problem of language. I don’t trust words. If you know what I mean I don’t know what they mean, is what I'm saying. Say one thing, mean another. Take subtext, euphemisms, or hyperbole, for example. Treacherous bastards! Some words are insidious, being held ransom to nuance and qualified language, creating spin and propaganda...Why complicate the matter. We should trim the weight of the English dictionary, tell it to lose some extra poundage. I’m going by what somebody else told me in a mythical chain of learning and perpetual knowledge-sharing, the 'meaning' surreptitiously seeping into my mindset over time through practice and repetition. This meaning is either concurred by others or its erroneous elements are pointed out. And in the event of any dispute, what do you do? Check the dictionary.

    But what if the dictionary men were fraudsters, a secret clandestine conspiracy imprisoning us within some structural quagmire, hm? Well that's preposterous, of course, because how could I even communicate this if that were the case? But what if...

    What I need to do is create a whole new language for myself, not gobbledegook but something else that sounds quirky. I'll strip it back so much it won't even be a language at all. I'll communicate through baby-gurgles and pointing. My voice will rise and fluctuate according to, not 'anger', but something else. There is no such thing as 'anger' in this new language of mine. On paper it can only be described as UUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, and its sure-sign is a look of worry on my face. No. that can't be right. There's no such thing as 'worry' in my new language either, for I have discarded that word and all its synonyms. Thereafter emotion and mental states can only be scientifically observed through looking at the shape of the eyebrows and the mouth, the holistic expression on the face of the subject. Such things can't be described either, such as the aforementioned eyebrows or the mouth or anything than can be scientifically observed in the ordinary sense of the 'word'. HA!...The word...The whole lexicon of words disintegrates into a cavernous bowl of word-soup, where letters and sentences swirl around and bash aimlessly into one another in the synapses of the brain which is no longer called a brain. You can do what you like with these letters. In fact, make up your own letters which is beyond the remit of this keyboard I'm sad to say. Everything that was once called something is now nameless, no labels, no signposts, no nothing but 'existence' which is not called existence. You know you 'exist' but you can't describe it in terms of 'knowledge', you can't demonstrate anything through lack of labels and a common understanding. You withdraw within yourself, therefore, a champion of the hermetic lifestyle. An ascetic monk. The only thing I know is I know is I know nothing. Who said that, does it matter? External is internal, you implode within yourself like a black hole which is not a black hole. It's a catch-22 in this world, and communication becomes a 'noise' of sorts whose existence whichever way you look at it, is difficult to deceive for you have eyes and you have ears but you can't say for sure because you can't describe anything. That said, become a firm believer in the philosophy of 'keeping it simple', for if you keep it simple one can never go wrong, misunderstanding will be minimised when no words or intentions cross the mysterious pathway between human minds, across the airwaves which are not airwaves. What a world that would be.

    ...Do you know what I'm saying? ...Do you? ...Well, perhaps I've been looking too much into it. Perhaps I'm a bit mental. What if in actuality what I’m writing right now really does not mean what I thought it meant? My God, the panic of such an idea plunges into my chest, right through my chest plate like an eight inch knife. It is immediate, and threatening, stuck there like a door-stopper. There is something in my mind, I can sense it. It may be an intruder, or a disease. I can't shoo him away with a brush, for he's made it very clear he's here for the long haul. A conscientious objector to my bullshit. My reason. He might leave me some day in old age when I have dementia, the separation between the two of us the annulment of a marriage which spanned generations. But who really knows the score about anything these days. And that is the edgy gospel according to...—what am I? Who am I? Who? What? Where? Horton heard a what? I’m clueless, I’m free, I’m not wise, I’m trapped, I’m bored, I’m satisfied. Ah life! So beautiful and ugly. Is that a paradox or am I just paranoid?

Comments

  1. Wreybies
    Perhaps not so profound in scope as what you are speaking about here, but to an extent the Dictionary Men are fraudsters. In my Webster's Dictionary, countless terms I know to be everyday terms in your country are listed as slang. And I know for a fact that the Oxford Dictionary notes countless American terms as slang as well. Both dictionaries are wrong in this. Taking the words of another speaking region and relegating them to the rank of slang is to demote them and make of them less, the alternative, not the standard. It's a way of impressing on a person that our way is the right way and that way over there, yes we recognize it, but you wouldn't want to do that, now would you... It's a form of ethnocentric indoctrination.

    The true definition of slang is a term or phrase created by a group (the group can be defined upon any lines they wish) as a way if identifying themselves as members of the group. This the express purpose of slang, and the reason that in the modern world slang has a very short shelf life. As soon as the term gets heard on television or radio and suddenly your mum is using it, well, can't use that anymore. In the bin and on to the next. Your Oxford Dictionary lists y'all as a American slang. It is not slang. It was never devised with the purpose of identifying anyone with any group. It has a very different source. It is a contraction of you all and fills the empty second person plural slot that was created when we dumped thou and made you (originally ye when the subject) serve double duty.

    So, long story short, dear lad, you're not far off the mark. ;)
  2. Mackers
    Ha! I didn't know I had even remotely touched on anything close to the mark...I was just playing around. It's interesting that about slang, though. There's a kind of snobbery element to it when you put it that way!
To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice