Wordsworx

It's been a while since I posted here.

In case you're wondering, all the goings-on in my wordy life - poeming, publishing and phd-ing - are readable over on my websites here and here, which is why this little corner has been so quiet!

Earlier today I watched Mr Funnyman himself, John Cleese, give a lecture about creativity. I found the video over here at the most excellent 'Brain Pickings' website.

He talked about how people operate in one of two modes: 'open' or 'closed'. These loosely align with 'right' and 'left' brain.

In 'closed' mode - and this is the mode we're in most of the time - we are purposeful and anxious, thinking about how much we have to do; we may be impatient and tense and we're definitely not feeling playful. In this state, says Cleese, it is impossible to be creative.

When we're in 'open' mode, however, we are less purposeful, more contemplative, playful and curious - and this is the state which gets our creative beans jumping.

According to Cleese (and he was rather un-Monty-Python-esque about it all until the end, although he did share plenty of lightbulb jokes), it's important to set aside a regular time and space to be playful and thoughtful so that we can reach our creative selves.

He expands on this and talks about how organisations are stifling creativity by creating environments without playfulness, but with plenty of solemnity and rigour, around processes and systems. In fact the two modes are complementary and essential to each other: when we're in 'open' mode, we are more likely to work out how to solve a problem. When we revert to 'closed' mode, we can then implement the solution efficiently.

Much of his talk could be summarised by this pithy quote from the wonderful Alan Watts:

You can't be spontaneous within reason.

So pop over and watch Basil Fawlty share serious - but not solemn - thoughts about creativity.

Let's remember to laugh, play, and have fun with our creative selves.

Although this bloggy corner here is very quiet, you may want to check out my poetry website where there's word action a-plenty.

That's over here.

Good morning on yet another hot Adelaide day (35°C).

I'm sorry for how silent I've been in this little cobwebby corner. I spent much of my waking time last year focusing on writing and editing pieces as part of my MA in Creative Writing at the University of Adelaide.

Only six months left now.

Although I'm theoretically at university 'full-time', I've also worked on several writing and editing projects during the year and will do so over the next few months.

All systems go here at Wordsworx!

'We pay for the exactitude of factual language with the price of being able to speak from only one point of view at a time.'

Alan Watts

My state recently:

Quaggy

[kwog-ee]

–adjective, -gi·er, -gi·est.
a state of being particularly perplexed or uncertain about what to do, esp. about business development; bogged down by the range of options available.

Origins:
2010; < quandary, a state of perplexity or uncertainty, esp. as to what to do; dilemma + foggy, blurred or obscured as if by fog; not clear; vague >

and

2010; < quagmire, a situation from which extrication is very difficult + foggy, blurred or obscured as if by fog; not clear; vague >



Remember to mind your language. And that you can always invent it.

I am applying Sufi wisdom to this blog.

'If what you are about to say is not more beautiful than silence, then abstain from speaking.'

A wonderful quote from Florence Nightingale got me thinking recently about the role of language and relationships:

'I think one's feelings waste themselves in words; they ought all to be distilled into actions which bring results.'

Which boils down to this: we can utter beautiful words until we're blue in the face (don't you love a nice cliché?), but if our talk is not supported by actions which demonstrate the truth of what we say, it's just wasted energy.

Take for example the phrase 'I love you': three simple words that declare a profound emotion. If these words are not supported by loving actions, however, they are negated and rendered 'all hollow, servile, insincere' (thanks Emily Brontë).

Has our carelessness with language in this way become more prevalent? Perhaps.

Language is being devalued by every man and his blog.

The internet offers us all the ability to sermonise from our virtual soapboxes. It's easy to develop the habit of prolific wordiness.

We bandy around words, our main currency of communication, like lottery winners because now more than ever, we have plenty of ways to 'spend up big' for all to see. In doing so, we risk losing sight of our language's nuances and subtleties. Quantity comes at quality's expense.

If we had fewer opportunities to share our words, would we spend more time crafting our statements to reflect our thoughts and feelings more accurately?

And would this habit of care extend to our conversations?

Our words currency loses value every day. In our relationships, we may say words that we don't quite mean, and we may not say what we really mean.

Ms Nightingale's statement reminds us to demonstrate the truth of our declarations. Let actions be the proof; hold back on the verbosity.

What do you think?


Remember to mind your language (and be vigilant for verbiage).

...shortly.

I'm sorry for how loud the silence has been around here: I've been busy with words.

My own, and other people's.

In my next post I'll be taking a critical look at words versus actions.

So keep checking back.

Or better still, subscribe to the RSS feed.

In the meantime, mind your language!

New year, new decade, new intentions ... it's that time again when many of us decide to make resolutions and changes, shift our behaviours and create new goals.

We use language to express those resolutions to confirm them as much to ourselves as to our family and friends.

As we know, language is a powerful tool. The world that we have created for ourselves is a reflection of the thoughts we've held and the words we've used to express those thoughts and intentions.

In this context, one word that needs to be handled with great care is the word 'want'.

We often use it to express our desires and needs. Indeed, the Oxford English reference dictionary defines 'want' as 'desire; wish for possession of; need'.

But the same dictionary also defines 'want' as 'to be without or fall short by', 'a lack, absence or deficiency' and 'poverty; need'.

Thus we could argue that when we say 'I want' something, we are stating that we do not have it as well as expressing the desire for it.

We are confirming our state of lack and therefore reinforcing that state of being, which pushes away that which we say we 'want'.

So, when you are stating your new year resolutions, take great care which words you choose to use.

Happy new year: may you realise all your dreams and aspirations in 2010.


And remember: mind your language.

Please humour me while I connect some apparently disconnected ideas here – and let me know what you think.

Popular films such as What The Bleep Do We Know – Down The Rabbit Hole and The Secret discuss the premise that we are all interconnected. Crossover physicists like Fred Alan Wolf and John Hagelin explore this interconnectedness of all things, explaining human consciousness and spirituality in terms of behaviour of matter and energy at the quantum level.

In her book The Field, journalist-turned-author Lynne McTaggart interviewed many respected scientists and physicists about experiments that seemed to point to the existence of the 'Zero Point Field', an energy field that connects every single thing in the universe.

Whether you regard this theory as absolute truth or quantum nonsense, one thing is certain: people want to believe that we each exist not in splendid isolation but as one in this cosmic soup.

We seem to have a need to connect with each other.

Even in the more traditional scientific camp, research physicists continue to pursue and describe a unified theory of everything, a quantum-mechanical theory that encompasses all forces and all matter.

In 1935, Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen came up with the idea of quantum entanglement to explain why quantum particles don't have fixed values for their properties until they are observed. Quantum entanglement is the effect in which the quantum states of two or more objects are linked together and must be described with reference to each other, even if the individual objects are spatially separated. Einstein famously called this 'spooky action at a distance'.

When it was finally possible to carry out the physical quantum entanglement experiment in the early 1980s, it was found that indeed there was an instantaneous faster-than-light action at a distance between once-linked photons, and presumably between once-linked particles.

If, as the Big Bang theory proposes, all particles that now exist originated from a common point when the universe began, does that mean all particles in the universe are connected?

As researchers, scientists, metaphysicists and mystics the world over investigate and postulate particle and conscious connectivity, the internet has provided the platform for the explosion of interconnecting phenomena such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and MySpace.

In what we could term 'social entanglement', applications such as Facebook and Twitter enable the mirroring of connectivity behaviours that scientists are investigating, witnessing and trying to understand in the quantum and string world since the early 1900s.

We reach out.

We bond with friends and strangers via status updates, tweets and links. The tendrils of those thoughts and feelings we choose to share spread out and curl around our followers and friends.

We in turn are gripped by the words of those whom we follow and friend.

Our entry into each others' lives is elegant, simple and seamless.

Then we become completely immersed in, and addicted to, mutual dramas, trending topics and what's on our respective breakfast menus.

It seems that via this growing social entanglement, our six degrees of separation are becoming more like six minutes of connectedness, or even six seconds of unification.

Is our intention and desire to become more interconnected with our fellow human beings actually affecting the weird quantum interconnectivity behaviours that physicists are observing?

Or is our growing understanding of the quantum world leading us to realise that we are, in fact, all connected?

Which is the cause, and which is the effect?

What do you think?


Whatever your answer, mind your language (and your thought experiments).

Is my bank diversifying?

Or is someone out to get me?

Recently, I received this 'Westpac Accidental Death Application Form' in the mail.

Has anyone taken up this (rather resistible) offer?

Proof, yet again, that it pays to look critically at your headlines and brochures, and how you word your offer.

(I declined this one.)


Remember to mind your language, especially if you're un-dead.

This blog is about language, not politics. Political behaviour that uses ambiguous language to curtail the use of language, however, definitely gets my attention.

Ireland's politicians have seen fit to introduce a new crime of blasphemous libel to replace the Defamation Act of 1961.

Many articles already discuss it here, here and here.

Please bear with me while I offer you the short, sharp version.

Article 40.6.1.i of Ireland's Constitution protects freedom of speech for its citizens as follows: 'The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality: The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.'

It qualifies this freedom of speech with the imposition of an obligation to implement the constitutional offence of blasphemy: 'The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.'

(Although the Defamation Act of 1961 fulfilled those obligations, offering up to seven years in prison and a hefty fine, only one blasphemy action was ever taken in the State since the introduction of the 1937 Constitution.)

Ireland's Minister for Justice, Dermot Ahern, has just repealed the Defamation Act. In doing so, however, he has had to satisfy the constitutional obligation.

And he has, in fine style.

Blasphemy now has its own special place in Irish law. The fresh, crispy Defamation Bill introduces a new crime of blasphemous libel. Although not punishable by imprisonment, fines of up to €25,000 may be imposed on offenders.

So, Minister Ahern has replaced draconian legislation required by the Constitution with slightly less draconian, more sweetly tweaked legislation.

Are you still with me? Good.

Minister Ahern has offered reassurances about Ireland's freshly polished rod of blasphemy.

He says that the revised provision would require at least three elements to be present: the material would have to be grossly abusive or insulting in matters held sacred by a religion; it must actually cause outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion; and there must be intent to cause such outrage. Such intent was not previously required.

The problem I see here is that successful prosecution of a case of blasphemy may hinge on proving or disproving the existence of some of these elements. That will rely on construal of meanings, behaviour and intention. Where there's interpretation, there's ambiguity.

And there's the conundrum: the possibility of using language cleverly in a court case to prove that inciteful language was used with blasphemous intent. This clever use of language may be the sword on which true freedom of expression falls.

If I'm afraid of breaking a law that doesn't allow me to say what I think or feel, does this not contravene my basic rights as a human being to express myself?

If I insult someone's religious beliefs – reprehensible as it may be – does my insult damage their beliefs?

It may incite heated debate, but you could argue that contained prejudices are even more dangerous than those expressed in language.

Of course, this whole issue could have been neatly sidestepped with a more considered, logical and democratic approach. Minister Ahern could simply have held a referendum and asked the people of Ireland if they thought the aforesaid draconian constitutional requirement should be removed altogether.

Minister Ahern decided not to, however, because it was "a costly and unwarranted diversion".

As human beings, each of us is responsible for our own actions and our own thoughts, which ultimately emanate from our beliefs.

Language is a vital way for us to communicate those thoughts and beliefs; via language we may even be convinced to change them.

Any attempt to legislate people's use of language is akin to attempting to control their thoughts and beliefs. It limits healthy debate, restricts robust discussion and creates a level of resentment and fear.

In the words of Benjamin Franklin:

'Without Freedom of thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of speech.'

Remember to mind your language and what you say and write (particularly if you live in Ireland).

I browse many websites.

I read many blogs.

And I'm definitely a Facebook and Twitter fan.

Via Twitter and Facebook, you can tell your followers and friends what you're doing, thinking or feeling in a particular moment. (A friend of mine once described a tweet as a 'brain fart'.)

Social networking sites are fun. They create a sense of online community and shared interests, and it's exciting to be part of stimulating and ultra-topical e-conversations.

Twitter is a particularly interesting phenomenon.

Many personal development and marketing identities use Twitter's 140-character long update box to share words of wisdom and perspectives on life.

The reason? To offer value to their followers. And they can kill two birds with one stone (sorry, Twitter bird!) by linking their tweets to their Facebook status.

I've found it fascinating to observe how some of the people I follow on Twitter – including some of the personal development 'gurus' – have started to sound like self-important preachers and evangelists.

Is it because of the language they're using?

Or is it me?

Am I not open-minded enough to hear the messages without sermonising overtones?

Am I particularly sensitive and over-exposed?

In fact, I believe it's simply about context.

Many of the great 'quotable quotes' we know and love came from memorable, significant speeches and transformational writings.

Twitter, however, is a 140-character e-pulpit with no room for a background story or how a particular life lesson was learned.

Communicating this way via social networking sites – and via Twitter in particular – is not conducive to providing a context. Of course there's room to include a link to the full story. It just doesn't work in isolation.

These pearls of wisdom have become like annoying rough stones in my shoe.

So I'll just unfollow, unfriend or unplug.

Because of course it's not you. It's me.

What do you think?

Many a success - both business and personal - has resulted because of embracing risk rather than fearing failure.

In his recent post What does risk management mean to your business?, Robert Rath discusses how innovation can flourish in an environment where risks are taken as well as managed.

Go to http://www.innovation-mentor.com now and risk sharing your thoughts.


Remember to mind your risky language.