Aesthetics

CwHD6

CONVERSATIONS is a new weblog begun 1 May 2017. The target audience, in a broad sense, is anyone with an active interest in words and language. More specifically, it is a weblog for wordsmiths.

Each Monday I post anew. Every four weeks I introduce a new theme. This post marks the start of the second four week cycle. The theme for the month is AESTHETICS. Commonly, all postings are a page or so long with the exception of the fourth when I use a sample of my work that might run three or four pages.

Starting this Thursday, I introduce a new feature. Dawg will have his day. Dawg Sez will provide a brief (usually half page) commentary on some curiosity of language. The ampersand for example.

AESTHETICS

Aesthetics, curiously, is also spelled 'esthetics'. The Greek 'æ' creates some confusion. This digraph is used in Latin (and many other languages) to represent the sound of the dipthong 'ae', and is usually pronounced like the 'i' in 'fine'. But not always. Sometimes ... well, nevermind. This CwHD is not about digrams. It is about aesthetics.

The artist Barnett Newman defined the term this way: Aesthetics is for the artist as Ornithology is for the birds.¹ Yes, and No. Ornithology leans on science. Aesthetics does not. Perusing the 1934 Webster's, one finds this definition for the word:

The branch of philosophy that deals with beauty and the beautiful ... the sensations and emotions that have the fine arts for their stimulus.

In an essay of some years ago, I argued that homo sapiens were nothing if not pattern seeking creatures.

We seek what I termed harmonious arrays (HAs). HAs, of course, relate directly to the beautiful. Beauty by definition might be considered a harmonious array and, as I noted in the essay, we often have those aHA moments when arrested by beauty.

If no HA happens, we analyze. This is science. And we continue to analyze until a workable theorem

presents itself. If our analysis is fruitless, we despair.

This reasoning has brought me to the notion that the primary purpose of words and language is to please both aesthetically and/or intellectually.

A word on arguing logically: repetitive ideas in phrases are known as tautologies. For example: This is like deja vu all over again. So said Yogi Berra (former catcher for the New York Yankees known for his malaprops). 'Beauty' and 'harmonious array' are similar ideas, but remain distinct. If an argument contains tautologies, it becomes no argument at all. Here's another well known example (a cliché, in fact) also from Yogi: It ain't over 'till it's over.

It's over.

1 Newman (1952), quoted in: C. Greig Crysler, ‎Stephen Cairns, ‎Hilde Heynen (2012). The SAGE Handbook of Architectural Theory. p. 123

The Purpose Of Language

The Purpose of Language

[I post once a week, on Mondays. The four week cycle has a format: first week, a theme is introduced; week two adds some depth with quotations; then a bit of resolution as well as a grammar tip (Dawg Sez); and finally, an excerpt from my own work (...practisin' what a peach...). At the end of the cycle, I will archive the four posts and begin anew. If you wish to be notified by email when new postings are made, add a note in a comment or send me an email.]

My last post suggested that words and language might not be quite the cat's meow. 7.5 billion people litter the planet. A vortex of plastic twice the size of Texas swirls in the Eastern Pacific. Glaciers are melting. Trump is in the White House. All is not as it should be.

That language is the culprit foisting all the various calamities upon us is, of course, quite a stretch; but that what we say and what we write has an impact seems self-evident. Words are too easily manipulated and misunderstood. Ask a teacher: "... Johnny, what part of 'sit down' didn't you understand ..."

"Consider this," I said as on the black board with yellow chalk (I like the contrast and the color better than white) I wrote: 2 + 2 = 4. "Mathematics: immutable, rigid, prescriptive." Then I wrote: too and two are homophones, and said, "Or sometimes homonyms, depends on whom ya gab mit, one begins to understand the inherent problem that language poses. Filters," I suggested, "make an apt analogy: fine meshed mosquito netting is prescriptive, more linear and logical, I might add and do: while cargo netting you kin stick yer hand through and this is where Master Po will take you though no mesh is no mess, concepts create such a muddle, ya with me or no?"

from my novel Consulting Huang Po

Where we bin left then, kiddies? Obviously, folks are having trouble communicating and should maybe oughta ferme la trap. So what value have words and language?

The argument made here is that the primary purpose of language is to entertain. This verb means to amuse, divert, interest, please and other such notions. I use 'entertain' in the sense of aesthetically and/or intellectually pleasing. To read a well written play is a pleasure and often leads to contemplation. Think Shakespeare: the groundlings in stitches while the intelligentsia in the balcony nod sagely. The key, of course, is that 'well written'. Or spoken. Or both: Was anyone entertained by the Gettysburg Address, do ya think?

NEW FEATURE:

'Dawg Sez' is about grammar and syntax, about the nuts and bolts of the language. Cain't fix it if'n ya don't know she's broke.

Dawg Sez: To write well, you got to know the rules. Name a game: got guys not followin' the rules and ya got yer basic chaos. Know the rules. Be clear. Be concise. Here's one to chew on:

'a' or 'an' before 'h': This puzzler is easily solved as long as you can exhale. Say the 'h' word in question. If there is an exhalation of breath (aspiration), then 'a' is the appropriate article:

a haystack

If there is no exhalation, 'an' is the appropriate article:

an hour

Easy-peasy. Hope ya learnt somethin'.

Words and Language

May 8, 2017

Words & Language

Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein wrote: In most cases, the meaning of a word is its use.¹ This phrase from Philosophical Investigations, published after his death in 1953, is often given as: The world we see is the words we use. Wittengenstein may or may not have written that version of his famous dictum.

The man was a piece of work: Austrian immigrant, Oxford University don, philosopher, misogynist, madman, genius. Never dull, our Ludwig. And oh so quotable. Here he is again: If a lion could talk, we could not understand him. This suggests that the world we see, is not the world a lion sees; nor is it one a bat sees. Nor a bee, a bear, a weeping willow or whathaveyou. So many realities, so little time

Words do seem to be the tool that homo sapiens use to create the phenomenon of their world. The genus homo---homo erectus, homo habilis, homo naledi, among others---evolved over a million years ago. From then until just a few thousand years ago, these folk were without language as we know it. They managed. This has significance.

The world we see is not quite the words we use. In fact, words and language, it might be argued, are nought but a veritable rat's nest; and, further, that they hinder humans far more than they help. Huang Po, a 9th century CE Chinese philosopher, Zen master, recluse, genius and teacher non-pareil suggests that words and the concepts that follow are precisely what ail us. The conceptual tails we chase are the words we misconstrue. Too many words. Entirely too many words.

Milarepa, one of Tibet's most illustrious yogis and poets, had this to say: When you run after your thoughts, you are like a dog chasing a stick: every time a stick is thrown, you run after it. Instead, be like a lion who, rather than chasing after the stick, turns to face the thrower. One only throws a stick at a lion once.

Words and language have brought us to the current state of the world. By most any measure, things ain't goin' so good. What to do? Ask Ludwig. He'll know. Enigmatically, W responds: There are remarks that sow and remarks that reap.²

Swell.

But wait; there's more: Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.³

Ah.

Enter Huang Po (we'll give the Master the last word, shall we? Silence is a sentiment he can get his head around): If you would spend all your time—walking, standing, sitting or lying down—learning to halt the concept-forming activities of your own mind, you could be sure of ultimately attaining Reality. Only he who restrains every vestige of empiricism and ceases to rely upon anything can become a perfectly tranquil man."⁴

1Ludwig Wittegenstein, Philosphical Investigations, Anscombe translation, Basil Blackwell Ltd, Oxford, 1958, # 43.

2Ray Monk Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Duty of Genius, Penguin Books, 1991, p404.

3Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus,

4John Blofeld, Translator: The Zen Teaching Of Huang Po, Grove Press, Inc, New York, 1958, p. 57.

Wordsmiths

A wordsmith, by definition, is a skilled user of words. This noun was coined, it seems, in the late 19th century. All wordsmiths are writers; not all writers are wordsmiths. Paradoxical? Perhaps. The internet has spawned writers who spew words at an alarming rate. Few 'bloggers' are wordsmiths. All, of course, are writers.

The grandfather of all wordsmiths goes by default to William Shakespeare. His most brilliant progeny must needs be James Joyce ('must needs be' is an archaic or rather formal adverbial phrase meaning 'necessarily'... for those who wondered). Shakespeare, of course, wrote volumes. Joyce wrote but three novels, a book of short stories, a play, and a slim book of poems. While one might read Hamlet in a day, Finnegan's Wake might occupy a lifetime (indeed, Joyce himself suggested that the perfect reader for Finnegan's Wake would be an insomniac who on finishing the book would turn to page one and start again).

Verbosity is not the sole measure of the wordsmith. 17th century Japanese poet Bashō, known primarily for his haiku, was also a consummate wordsmith. His books are a combination of prose and poetry known in Japanese as haibun, a word often translated as prose with a distinctive haiku flavor. They were simply travelogues, but exquisite examples of that genre done by a master wordsmith.

CONVERSATIONS is a weblog ('blog' is an ugly word) for wordsmiths. The site is also a vehicle to give my books (my ideas?) a hearing. I have selected a 'free' platform to begin this project. Advertising, apparently, will happen. If this becomes intolerable, I will simply stop. My goal with the weblog is to post weekly some 300 words of intelligent 'conversation' without error or inanity.

Questions, comments, and corrections are encouraged.

gaptoothed, belly full

pass clogged with snow