For its own sake, it’s own purpose. The love for sentences and for words trumping the meaning behind them. The cacophony of an aggressive phrasing, the flow of a meandering sentence, the rhythm of a tight wording and the absence rather than presence of certain vocabulary. Sometimes, as Nietzsche would say – if you are in it, do it without putting your thinking lenses on. For that defeats the sensation of experiencing it. There’s a sensation with words don’t you think? The way it engulfs you with its tricksy patronage. They way it deceives you in the most inarticulate of ways. And the way they just seem to come together of their own accord. Much like this one here is shaping itself.
There’s a case to be made for more fluidity in how you operate this little startup called life. Kind of like the lean movement that’s gripping it’s more pedestrian and bourgeoise counterpart. Was reading Second Hand time by Svetlana Alexeivich yesterday and came across a curious interpretation that the author developed through the multiple interviews she conducted to document the lives and times of ordinary Russians in the midst of one of the most uncertain of modern times. She says that Russians have always had a hatred of petty existence and they seemed to always believe that it was their role to save the world, and that in pursuing this operation, they would eventually save themselves. They loved revolution because they did not like the alternative existence of banal longings and needs. Somewhat like what we believe our lives to be. Something beyond the obvious and the immediate. Something out of grasp always. A friend used to term things like those in his Bundelkhandi lingo as having the ‘chool’. The ‘chool’ is that sharp feeling in your brain, in your gut, in your veins of doing something that shows you are driving rather than being driven by the I shapely forces around you. Everyone does basically need to find his / her own ‘chool’. Yeah, it’s not just a different phrasing of a cliched term even though it seems like that. It’s more than that, a level deeper than the common terminologies that describe the malady of modern times.
But I am here for words only. Surprising how the semantics wrap themselves in our heads more often than not. Semantics are in a sense our ingrained biases aren’t they? In their rules of thumb and evolution in terms of common usage they come to represent our chosen view of the world. Our understanding of the language determine our interpretation of the experiences around us, exacerbating the bias. Would one be able to do away with semantics then? If one intends to eliminate the biases creeping up inside our veins?
There are, I am sure, many varieties of biases. Perceptual ones tend to demonstrate itself through our interactions with others. A particularly sensitive lad may be able to detect it in hisself real-time if he is at it continuously. But doing so is dangerous as it leads to an overtly complex manifestations of reality that may or may not be as black and white as they are souped up to be. No matter how much of an objectivity you may bring to the table, there will always be a sense of vindictive motive that you may be driving towards.