That day on a still park
Near a fountain, I was sitting on a bench next to an old lady
Gazing at the statue at the centre of the fountain
Of a woman -- covered at appropriate places -- gazing back at me
The old lady was reading the morning paper
Everything about her was grey
Grey attire, grey paper, grey much like the greyish-blue sky
and the grey clouds, behind which the sun was hiding
I curled, lifting my knees to touch my cheeks, about to doze off
The old lady took out a handkerchief to wipe her tears, the paper still on her lap
A long sniffle.
I needn't to ask her why -- I read it
Another brutality, another atrocity, another crack at the Dam of tears
A baby thrown away down the garbage chute, its orifices teeming with ants
A young suicide bomber blasting off in the middle of town
A girl finally succumbing to death seven hours after her last wish was granted
A rape of a woman; a rape of a nation
Body parts scattered in the Atlantic
It makes the heart of everyone who has it
bleeds
The handkerchief can soak up her tears
-- How about
the blood shed
the innocence snatched
the scar incurred
on the body and the soul --
What can?
A chill drizzle comes
though it feels warm like tears
steadily gaining momentum
I look at the tear-stained paper:
creased and crumpled
drop by drop the paper is getting wet.
I look at the tear-stained face:
weathered by time, creased and crumpled
by sorrow and anguish
drop by drop the face is getting wet.
Even the statue is weeping:
Something flows beneath its eyes
pigeonshit and rainwater mingling
Everything is crying --
the lady, the heaven, the statue
How can I not be?
The Art of Kissing
Do you ever wonder why we kiss? What is it that causes us to pucker and lock lips, exchange saliva (and colonies of bacteria), and intertwine tongues (sometimes).
A little search in the Net reveals a few hypotheses: social conditioning, instinct -- remnant from when mothers feed chewed food to the young, pheromone sensing, etc.
Social conditioning means that the behaviour passes from generation to generation. Considering that there are indigenous tribes not known to have kissing culture, this may be true. But then again, kissing may be too private to talk about or to be observed -- so it is not final that the behaviour is non-existent. Also, some animals, specifically primates, are also known to exhibit osculation (that's the technical term for kissing).
The pheromone sensing is an interesting theory. When we are talking about pheromone in humans, usually we don't mean it literally, since there is no specific hormone in us attracting the opposite sex to mate -- unlike insects, where pheromones mean just that. Some research papers suggest that somehow women can distinguish men with better genes. From the evolution point of view, this of course means that the offspring is more likely to be fit. Now, this obscure sensing may be the sum of the experience -- the man's height, his symmetrical face, his way of talking reflecting good education, his toned muscles -- the sum of it all may be the said metaphorical pheromone, the attraction, physically or otherwise. I believe that intuition can be reasoned out in a similar way. There are numerous little circumstances that you consider subconsciously -- the sum of it all, the conclusion, is what we call intuition. But I digress.
Since we are talking about "sensing the good genes" here, it is worth-noting that kissing involves a great deal of our senses. All our five senses -- visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory, gustatory -- are hosted on our heads, so isn't it logical that we keep our heads close to each other when decrypting each other's pheromone signalling?
Why the lips, though? Well, if you have ever seen the picture of a sensory homunculus, it is obvious that a lot of sensory nerve endings are located on the lips and the tongue (about 21%). A significant portion is also located, of course, on the fingertips.
Indeed "why the mouth?" is a good question. Consider that a lot of metaphors of copulation are related to eating -- consummation, devour, eat you up. Also consider why cunnilingus and fellatio and a plethora of similar activities are practised.
To answer this question we have to consider symbolic significance of the mouth. The mouth is a passage to let something in; that something will be a part of the self. Considering this, it is not that far-fetched to describe kissing as letting the other party have a taste of ourselves, making a little of ourselves to be a part of somebody else's. This is a little bit different from copulation, since here, both parties are equal in the give-and-take.
So: a kiss is a complex exchange of information. Even enlightenment can be transmitted.
Deep.
A little search in the Net reveals a few hypotheses: social conditioning, instinct -- remnant from when mothers feed chewed food to the young, pheromone sensing, etc.
Social conditioning means that the behaviour passes from generation to generation. Considering that there are indigenous tribes not known to have kissing culture, this may be true. But then again, kissing may be too private to talk about or to be observed -- so it is not final that the behaviour is non-existent. Also, some animals, specifically primates, are also known to exhibit osculation (that's the technical term for kissing).
The pheromone sensing is an interesting theory. When we are talking about pheromone in humans, usually we don't mean it literally, since there is no specific hormone in us attracting the opposite sex to mate -- unlike insects, where pheromones mean just that. Some research papers suggest that somehow women can distinguish men with better genes. From the evolution point of view, this of course means that the offspring is more likely to be fit. Now, this obscure sensing may be the sum of the experience -- the man's height, his symmetrical face, his way of talking reflecting good education, his toned muscles -- the sum of it all may be the said metaphorical pheromone, the attraction, physically or otherwise. I believe that intuition can be reasoned out in a similar way. There are numerous little circumstances that you consider subconsciously -- the sum of it all, the conclusion, is what we call intuition. But I digress.
Since we are talking about "sensing the good genes" here, it is worth-noting that kissing involves a great deal of our senses. All our five senses -- visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory, gustatory -- are hosted on our heads, so isn't it logical that we keep our heads close to each other when decrypting each other's pheromone signalling?
Why the lips, though? Well, if you have ever seen the picture of a sensory homunculus, it is obvious that a lot of sensory nerve endings are located on the lips and the tongue (about 21%). A significant portion is also located, of course, on the fingertips.
Indeed "why the mouth?" is a good question. Consider that a lot of metaphors of copulation are related to eating -- consummation, devour, eat you up. Also consider why cunnilingus and fellatio and a plethora of similar activities are practised.
To answer this question we have to consider symbolic significance of the mouth. The mouth is a passage to let something in; that something will be a part of the self. Considering this, it is not that far-fetched to describe kissing as letting the other party have a taste of ourselves, making a little of ourselves to be a part of somebody else's. This is a little bit different from copulation, since here, both parties are equal in the give-and-take.
So: a kiss is a complex exchange of information. Even enlightenment can be transmitted.
Deep.
Pun 101
When talking about context, I couldn't help but think of puns. Let me start off by saying that there are a lot of theories about why funny things are funny. What I'm focusing here is puns, which is just a subset of all things funny (or lame -- depends) and what role context plays. Again, language and philosophy hand-in-hand.
Puns basically makes use of ambiguity. This is where context comes into play. If you remember about ambiguity between lambda and rù (λ), you will see that we need to choose the right context to ascertain meaning. What makes puns humorous is the confusion of this choice of contexts. let's have an example:
Most theorists agree that this unsuspecting element is one of the core elements of all things funny. So: several contexts exist, we chose the most likely one, but oh no, actually it is the other context. This "oh no" part is the surprise element, the unexpected, making connections between contexts that are previously not usually thought to be connected. Daniel Dennet argued that as a reward for making this connection, we fall into fit of laughter. This is certainly an interesting theory since laughter has been proven to have physiological benefits, so it is not far-fetched to call it a reward. I would like very much to address the many theories of humour, but that is another story.
Let's have another pun:
In this light, you can see that rebus puzzles are a kind of pun, too.
Here are few examples (source):
Mouseover for answers. Again, there are two meanings, those represented by the arrangement of the visual cues on the puzzle and the other is a common phrase/sentence -- both should point to the same phrase/sentence. Do you see it?
Now, let's talk about categorisation. Language is not only spoken, but written; so it should be no surprise that besides homonymic puns, there are homophonic ones. Homonyms are words with the same spelling but different meanings, like "decomposing". Homophones are words that sound the same but are spelt differently. Example for a homophonic pun:
On a related note, there is a category of homophonic puns called mondegreens. Perhaps they should not be called puns, because mostly, they are not intended. Basically a mondegreen is a misinterpretation of a line because it sounds similar to something else. Sylvia Wright proposed this term because as a child she hear a poem which has a line "And laid him on the green" but she misinterpreted it as "And Lady Mondegreen". So you can see that Mondegreen itself is a mondegreen (this is kind of recursive, isn't it?). I can recall a recent example, which perhaps should be called reverse mondegreen or intended mondegreen. In other words, it's a genuine pun. Language Log dubbed it the worst pun of all time, even. Here it is:
Lastly, let's have puns about puns that I shamelessly plagiarise from Wikipedia:
Puns basically makes use of ambiguity. This is where context comes into play. If you remember about ambiguity between lambda and rù (λ), you will see that we need to choose the right context to ascertain meaning. What makes puns humorous is the confusion of this choice of contexts. let's have an example:
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who don't.Now, the quote says exactly what it says: if you don't understand binary, you won't get the joke; the joke is on you. Of course, the first time reading this you will establish a context, like it or not (since we already argued earlier that for something to have a meaning, it has to rest on a context plane). Well, the context that we established is that "10" is ten, in base ten, as is commonly the case. The pun here confuses the context of base ten and to understand the quote we have to change our context to base two, as hinted ("binary"). Ah, now it makes sense -- "10" is actually two if we convert it to base ten.
Most theorists agree that this unsuspecting element is one of the core elements of all things funny. So: several contexts exist, we chose the most likely one, but oh no, actually it is the other context. This "oh no" part is the surprise element, the unexpected, making connections between contexts that are previously not usually thought to be connected. Daniel Dennet argued that as a reward for making this connection, we fall into fit of laughter. This is certainly an interesting theory since laughter has been proven to have physiological benefits, so it is not far-fetched to call it a reward. I would like very much to address the many theories of humour, but that is another story.
Let's have another pun:
When Mozart passed away, he was buried in a churchyard. A couple days later, the town drunk was walking through the cemetery and heard some strange noise coming from the area where Mozart was buried.You can immediately see that the punchline is the two meanings of "decomposing": rotting away and the opposite of composing a symphony. It should be noted that the contexts surrounding the two meanings are not really confused -- more like they are fused. Of course the correct course of nature is for a human to rot away in a grave, but a strange phenomenon happened: the backward playing of Mozart's works; both ultimately point to the word "decomposing".
Terrified, the drunk ran and got the town magistrate to come and listen to it.
When the magistrate arrived, he bent his ear to the grave, listened for a moment, and said, "Ah, yes, that's Mozart's Ninth Symphony, being played backwards."
He listened a while longer, and said, "There's the Eighth Symphony, and it's backwards, too. Most puzzling."
So the magistrate kept listening; "There's the Seventh... the Sixth... the Fifth..." Suddenly the realization of what was happening dawned on the magistrate; he stood up and announced to the crowd that had gathered in the cemetery, "My fellow citizens, there's nothing to worry about. It's just Mozart decomposing."
In this light, you can see that rebus puzzles are a kind of pun, too.
Here are few examples (source):
Mouseover for answers. Again, there are two meanings, those represented by the arrangement of the visual cues on the puzzle and the other is a common phrase/sentence -- both should point to the same phrase/sentence. Do you see it?Now, let's talk about categorisation. Language is not only spoken, but written; so it should be no surprise that besides homonymic puns, there are homophonic ones. Homonyms are words with the same spelling but different meanings, like "decomposing". Homophones are words that sound the same but are spelt differently. Example for a homophonic pun:
A: What is the difference between a prince and a ball?Needless to say, this is about the similar pronunciations between "heir" and "air" as well as between"throne" and "thrown". There are several other categorisation, such as the rebus puzzle case, in which the arrangement of the visual cues are not really "words", so it cannot be categorised under homonymic -- but in principle, puns revolve around ambiguity of meanings -- this can arise from the same spelling, the same sound, etc.
B: A prince is heir to the throne; a ball is thrown to the air.
On a related note, there is a category of homophonic puns called mondegreens. Perhaps they should not be called puns, because mostly, they are not intended. Basically a mondegreen is a misinterpretation of a line because it sounds similar to something else. Sylvia Wright proposed this term because as a child she hear a poem which has a line "And laid him on the green" but she misinterpreted it as "And Lady Mondegreen". So you can see that Mondegreen itself is a mondegreen (this is kind of recursive, isn't it?). I can recall a recent example, which perhaps should be called reverse mondegreen or intended mondegreen. In other words, it's a genuine pun. Language Log dubbed it the worst pun of all time, even. Here it is:
Lastly, let's have puns about puns that I shamelessly plagiarise from Wikipedia:
- "The pun is mightier than the word." — original source unknown
(Pun and word: plays on "pen" and "sword", in the saying "The pen is mightier than the sword".)
"A pun is its own reword." — Dance Drier, British comedian
(Reword: pun on "reward", from the saying "Virtue is its own reward".)
"Hanging is too good for a man who makes puns; he should be drawn and quoted." — Fred Allen
(Quoted: pun on "quartered", an old form of capital punishment.)
"Immanuel doesn't pun; he Kant." — Oscar Wilde
(Kant: play on "can't", in the name of philosopher Immanuel Kant)
So punny.
Love is a loaded word
L is for the way you look at me
O is for the only one I see
V is very, very extraordinary
E is even more than anyone that you adore
-- L-O-V-E, Milt Gabler
"Love is a loaded word". This particular statement from a show is really unforgettable. Perhaps because it reminds me of something I read before about the Greeks, who have four different words for love. A concept so difficult to grasp, to the extent that some people may never find what it really is in their lifetime; unfathomably deep and wide like an ocean, crammed inside a four-letter word?
'Loaded' is an understatement.
Let us digress a bit and talk about epistemological view of language, especially words. We often overlook the fact that words are actually containers of meaning, not the meanings themselves. That a word is not identical to the thing it signifies may seem obvious, but give it a little more thought. Let's have a quote, then, appropriately from a play with a theme of love:
'Loaded' is an understatement.
Let us digress a bit and talk about epistemological view of language, especially words. We often overlook the fact that words are actually containers of meaning, not the meanings themselves. That a word is not identical to the thing it signifies may seem obvious, but give it a little more thought. Let's have a quote, then, appropriately from a play with a theme of love:
Juliet:
Romeo and Juliet (II, ii)
What's in a name? That which we call a rose(45)
By any other name would smell as sweet.
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name;
And for that name, which is no part of thee,(50)
Take all myself.
The word 'rose' is a label, which the speakers of English agree to call the flower as such. And of course Juliet is in love with the person Romeo, not caring about his family name Montague.
With this in mind, imagine the thing which we label 'love'.
Not easy, isn't it? I, a non-native English speaker myself, often wonder about why the word is so short when the meaning it encompasses is really vast. And why the lack of alternative expressions. Sure we have some: infatuation, concupiscence, amorousness, even artificial term like limerence. Yet those can be considered not of equal magnitude compared to 'love'. Moreover, the low frequency of usage of those in daily conversation alone should be enough evidence of that.
The Greeks themselves are well-known for having four words for love, thanks to C.S. Lewis. These are: eros, storge, philia and agape. Roughly, eros is physical attraction; storge, affection; philia, liking; agape, unconditional love. It should be noted that the word philia occurs in philosophy (love for wisdom), hydrophilic (affinity to water), etc. You can see that philia itself is also an umbrella term for general 'liking'. It goes without saying that 'erotic' comes from eros (C.S. Lewis asserts that eros is not necessarily sexual, though). As for agape, let's take a look at one of the most famous verses in the Bible:
With this in mind, imagine the thing which we label 'love'.
Not easy, isn't it? I, a non-native English speaker myself, often wonder about why the word is so short when the meaning it encompasses is really vast. And why the lack of alternative expressions. Sure we have some: infatuation, concupiscence, amorousness, even artificial term like limerence. Yet those can be considered not of equal magnitude compared to 'love'. Moreover, the low frequency of usage of those in daily conversation alone should be enough evidence of that.
The Greeks themselves are well-known for having four words for love, thanks to C.S. Lewis. These are: eros, storge, philia and agape. Roughly, eros is physical attraction; storge, affection; philia, liking; agape, unconditional love. It should be noted that the word philia occurs in philosophy (love for wisdom), hydrophilic (affinity to water), etc. You can see that philia itself is also an umbrella term for general 'liking'. It goes without saying that 'erotic' comes from eros (C.S. Lewis asserts that eros is not necessarily sexual, though). As for agape, let's take a look at one of the most famous verses in the Bible:
16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
-- John 3:16, KJV
The Greek word that John uses here is agape. So agape is the ultimate form of love, unconditional and sacrificial; the love of God. The greatest love of all, if you may.
The Japanese also have at least three expressions for love: ai (愛), koi (恋) and suki (好き). 'Suki' actually pretty much means 'like', but this is actually the expression used when you intend to date a person. This may seem strange, but this is the culture. In Japanese language, straightforwardness is discouraged. Intentions are revealed in subtle manner. This is also generally true for most Asian cultures. I also read that aishiteru (愛してる) is only said when the couple is at the stage serious enough to marry (perhaps this one is outdated though. It was quite a few years back). From my research, it appears that 'ai' may cover philia and agape -- love in general, while 'koi' is closer to eros or limerence.
I won't bother you with the problem of 'liebe' in German, though, since I don't dabble in German that much (here, and here if you are interested). Most people know 'ich liebe dich' -- wait, do you really?
So there you have it. This crazy little thing called love is certainly not little in any way -- 'love' is loaded, literally. I think it is really underhanded whenever you say 'I love you', since that word covers almost everything anyway, swept clean under the rug.
Pause and think about which love, and don't make the wrong choice.
The Japanese also have at least three expressions for love: ai (愛), koi (恋) and suki (好き). 'Suki' actually pretty much means 'like', but this is actually the expression used when you intend to date a person. This may seem strange, but this is the culture. In Japanese language, straightforwardness is discouraged. Intentions are revealed in subtle manner. This is also generally true for most Asian cultures. I also read that aishiteru (愛してる) is only said when the couple is at the stage serious enough to marry (perhaps this one is outdated though. It was quite a few years back). From my research, it appears that 'ai' may cover philia and agape -- love in general, while 'koi' is closer to eros or limerence.
I won't bother you with the problem of 'liebe' in German, though, since I don't dabble in German that much (here, and here if you are interested). Most people know 'ich liebe dich' -- wait, do you really?
So there you have it. This crazy little thing called love is certainly not little in any way -- 'love' is loaded, literally. I think it is really underhanded whenever you say 'I love you', since that word covers almost everything anyway, swept clean under the rug.
Pause and think about which love, and don't make the wrong choice.
Six Degrees of Separation
I read somewhere that everybody on this planet is separated by only six other people. Six degrees of separation between us and everyone else on this planet. The President of the United States, a gondolier in Venice, just fill in the names. I find that extremely comforting, that we're so close, but I also find it like Chinese water torture that we're so close because you have to find the right six people to make the connection. It's not just big names—it's anyone. A native in a rain forest, a Tierra del Fuegan, an Eskimo. I am bound—you are bound—to everyone on this planet by a trail of six people. It's a profound thought: how Paul found us; how to find the man whose son he claims to be, or perhaps is, although I doubt it. How everyone is a new door, opening into other worlds.
-- John Guare, Six Degrees of Separation
I'm just a single voice
What can I do to erase
All this misunderstanding
All this anarchy
Six degrees of separation
Sometimes it's so hard to see
That we are not alone in this
-- Corrinne May, Free
"Six Degrees of Separation" is a concept that everyone in the world is linked to at most six degrees. As the Wikipedia article mentions, Frigyes Karinthy proposed this notion back in 1929.
When I ponder on why people find this concept appealing, I think it can be summarised concisely as thus: the notion of shrinking 6.5 odd billion people to 6 degrees -- what a dwindle! Our enormous globe, suddenly implodes to network of no more than six connections between the nodes. This big shrink, this oversimplification can be understood without taxing the minds. There is no need to imagine how do billions of people crowded together look like, like the spell of dizziness when you look up at the vast expanse of the sky, whose boundaries you cannot fathom.
However, while offering a concept even a child can understand, it is also almost impossible to prove or disprove this notion.
Let's scrutinise this concept closely:
As of 2006, the estimate for the global population stands at 6.53 billion. Now, let us assume one-way network. This means we zoom at one person and view the network of acquaintances around him. If we let average numbers of a person's acquaintances to be n, then
n^6 = 6.53 x 10^9
Solving for n, we get roughly 43. So, on average, a person only needs to know 43 people for the whole world to be interconnected. So few?
We have to take a look at some assumptions:
Firstly, this assumes that there is no social barriers. Anybody is free to mix around with anybody. With the current globalisation era, the reality is becoming closer to the assumption. Still, special circumstances like cultural isolation, geographical restraint, language barriers, etc. may come into play here.
Secondly, society is dynamic. Relationships are broken, created, renewed; and we are always moving about, geographically or otherwise, as in births and deaths. The figure 6.53 billion is a frame freeze, which vacillates across space and time. While it is true that statistically speaking population size doesn't vary that much, we are talking about the dynamism of the exchanges of communication, which cannot be easily included in the equation.
Thirdly, we assume that all relationships are on acquaintance level. In actuality, we have stronger and weaker relationships than that. You see, if we have strong relationship, say family, we tend to stick more to the stronger relationships, while the assumption suggests that you stroll in the park and make acquaintances to strangers along your way.
Fourthly, we assume that on average we have the same amiability level. In truth, there are introverts and extroverts and the spectrum in between. And this is of course related to the previous assumption. Our personalities influence on the combinations of strong or weak relationships that we have.
...
In the end, even with the assumptions laid bare, it is still impossible to see whether the fact that everyone is separated by at most 5 people in between, is true. In the end it is just romanticisation, an idealisation, like a pretty gift wrapped in fancy ribbons, but without utility whatsoever.
I believe what the world unity can not only be achieved by merely an ideal. When we get right down to it, we have to eliminate prejudice, promote equality, educate the people, help one another in need, play a joke on each other a little,
while keeping in mind that we are all tightly connected, every two of us having no more than five people in between.
Update: How about taking a look at the Internet itself to picture the complexity of connections? Wait patiently for it to load...
When I ponder on why people find this concept appealing, I think it can be summarised concisely as thus: the notion of shrinking 6.5 odd billion people to 6 degrees -- what a dwindle! Our enormous globe, suddenly implodes to network of no more than six connections between the nodes. This big shrink, this oversimplification can be understood without taxing the minds. There is no need to imagine how do billions of people crowded together look like, like the spell of dizziness when you look up at the vast expanse of the sky, whose boundaries you cannot fathom.
However, while offering a concept even a child can understand, it is also almost impossible to prove or disprove this notion.
Let's scrutinise this concept closely:
As of 2006, the estimate for the global population stands at 6.53 billion. Now, let us assume one-way network. This means we zoom at one person and view the network of acquaintances around him. If we let average numbers of a person's acquaintances to be n, then
n^6 = 6.53 x 10^9
Solving for n, we get roughly 43. So, on average, a person only needs to know 43 people for the whole world to be interconnected. So few?
We have to take a look at some assumptions:
Firstly, this assumes that there is no social barriers. Anybody is free to mix around with anybody. With the current globalisation era, the reality is becoming closer to the assumption. Still, special circumstances like cultural isolation, geographical restraint, language barriers, etc. may come into play here.
Secondly, society is dynamic. Relationships are broken, created, renewed; and we are always moving about, geographically or otherwise, as in births and deaths. The figure 6.53 billion is a frame freeze, which vacillates across space and time. While it is true that statistically speaking population size doesn't vary that much, we are talking about the dynamism of the exchanges of communication, which cannot be easily included in the equation.
Thirdly, we assume that all relationships are on acquaintance level. In actuality, we have stronger and weaker relationships than that. You see, if we have strong relationship, say family, we tend to stick more to the stronger relationships, while the assumption suggests that you stroll in the park and make acquaintances to strangers along your way.
Fourthly, we assume that on average we have the same amiability level. In truth, there are introverts and extroverts and the spectrum in between. And this is of course related to the previous assumption. Our personalities influence on the combinations of strong or weak relationships that we have.
...
In the end, even with the assumptions laid bare, it is still impossible to see whether the fact that everyone is separated by at most 5 people in between, is true. In the end it is just romanticisation, an idealisation, like a pretty gift wrapped in fancy ribbons, but without utility whatsoever.
I believe what the world unity can not only be achieved by merely an ideal. When we get right down to it, we have to eliminate prejudice, promote equality, educate the people, help one another in need, play a joke on each other a little,
while keeping in mind that we are all tightly connected, every two of us having no more than five people in between.
Update: How about taking a look at the Internet itself to picture the complexity of connections? Wait patiently for it to load...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)