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).
Thursday, September 17. 2009
Facebook and Twitter: social entanglement mirrors strange quantum interconnectivity
Wednesday, July 22. 2009
Ambiguous language may stifle expression: the Irish blasphemy conundrum
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:
Remember to mind your language and what you say and write (particularly if you live in Ireland).
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).
Wednesday, February 18. 2009
Revelationary statements
The other day my lovely friend Michelle T and I were talking about new business ideas and catalysts of change. She asked me about my turning point; what had caused me to change how I operate, resulting in what is now a growing copywriting, communications and marketing business?
I remember the moment well.
The statement that stopped me in my tracks was not a particularly sophisticated one unlike, for example:
'Success is the sum of small efforts, repeated day in and day out' (Robert Collier)
'People rarely succeed unless they have fun in what they are doing' (Dale Carnegie)
or even the funky
'Maintain an attitude of gratitude' (Wallace Wattles, Science of Getting Rich).
It was simply this:
'If you keep doing the same thing, you'll keep getting the same results.'
Yes I know: although it's true, it doesn't sound particularly cool or clever.
This statement, however, was the one that opened my eyes and rattled my cage of lethargy.
I realised that continuing to sit at my desk – reading, absorbing, thinking, but not taking action or changing my behaviour – might increase my level of knowledge, but wasn't going to introduce me to new clients or create a profitable business.
Sometimes it's the short, sharp messages that have the most profound impact.
You just have to be ready to hear them.
What's your revelationary statement? Please share in the comments box!
Remember to mind your language – and listen out for those revelationary statements!
I remember the moment well.
The statement that stopped me in my tracks was not a particularly sophisticated one unlike, for example:
'Success is the sum of small efforts, repeated day in and day out' (Robert Collier)
'People rarely succeed unless they have fun in what they are doing' (Dale Carnegie)
or even the funky
'Maintain an attitude of gratitude' (Wallace Wattles, Science of Getting Rich).
It was simply this:
'If you keep doing the same thing, you'll keep getting the same results.'
Yes I know: although it's true, it doesn't sound particularly cool or clever.
This statement, however, was the one that opened my eyes and rattled my cage of lethargy.
I realised that continuing to sit at my desk – reading, absorbing, thinking, but not taking action or changing my behaviour – might increase my level of knowledge, but wasn't going to introduce me to new clients or create a profitable business.
Sometimes it's the short, sharp messages that have the most profound impact.
You just have to be ready to hear them.
What's your revelationary statement? Please share in the comments box!
Remember to mind your language – and listen out for those revelationary statements!
Saturday, December 6. 2008
Go ahead: judge a book by its cover
Some people concern themselves only with the content of a book. To them, it doesn’t matter what the book looks like. For these people, content is king. For others including me, however, it’s a different story.
What the book looks like matters just as much as what’s written inside. I collect books. I love first editions. I love books with a provenance, with a story attached.
For example, one of my most prized books is an edition of Charles Dickens’ The Old Curiosity Shop which is signed by Florence Nightingale.
When I set out to put together my second collection of poetry, 17 poems: one for every year of innocence, I wanted it to be different from traditional poetry collections.
I wanted to present the poems beautifully. I wanted the book to be hand bound. I wanted a gorgeous cover. I wanted a book that would be a delight to touch, hold and feel. I wanted it to be a trophy on a book shelf.
And if people liked the poetry inside, well, that’d be a bonus!
17 poems: one for every year of innocence is a limited edition: there are only 150 printed in this particular design and format. This adds to the special feel of the book.
The other unusual aspect of the book is that each volume includes a CD of me reading the poems. This adds another dimension to the experience and helps to make poetry more accessible to those who are more 'auditory' than 'visual'.
The saying ‘don’t judge a book by its cover’ does not apply here. Please feel completely free to judge it by its cover.
And remember: mind your language!
Monday, November 24. 2008
Why being a poet will NOT get you sales!
If poetry bored you to tears in high school, there’s probably a really good reason.
At Ted Nicholas's Dream Information Publishing Seminar recently, I was wrestling with the idea of how to make poetry publishing profitable.
I have just published my second collection of poetry, 17 poems: one for every year of innocence. (Ginninderra Press published my first collection, Exposure, in 2003.)
As I listened to Ted speak about the importance of getting into an emotional state conducive to writing compelling copy, I started to compare the poetry writing and copywriting processes.
They’re similar, but different.
Let me explain.
Usually I write short poems with layers of meaning and emotion, because of course I write poems (or songs) about an experience, a moment or an event which affected me in some way. I’m baring my soul, and if I’ve touched on a universal theme in the process, then there’s a chance that readers may connect and empathise with my experience.
When I write marketing and sales copy, I write emotional and passionate words that will move, touch and inspire the prospect/reader. I set out to create that empathy on purpose.
The major difference between them is the intention.
As a poet, I write for myself. I suppose you could call it self-indulgent. I absolutely need to write. It’s a kind of purging. The words shoot out from my soul in some inexplicable, out-of-control trajectory, splattering all over the page. Sometimes I have to clean them up and make them more presentable. With a bit of luck, those who read my poem may find that it resonates with them. When I’m writing a poem, however, that’s the last thing on my mind.
With copywriting, it’s a different story. I write with the reader completely in mind. I sit down with this prospect, who has some desperate want which I intend to satisfy. I then have a conversation with this person, identify all his/her fears, hopes and expectations, and propel him/her inevitably towards taking whatever action I’m suggesting.
So, great poems create empathy in spite of the intention (or they don’t, in the case of those ones that bored you senseless at high school).
Great sales copy creates empathy because of the intention.
(Oh, and one pays more than the other.)
Remember to mind your language – and your intentions!
At Ted Nicholas's Dream Information Publishing Seminar recently, I was wrestling with the idea of how to make poetry publishing profitable.
I have just published my second collection of poetry, 17 poems: one for every year of innocence. (Ginninderra Press published my first collection, Exposure, in 2003.)
As I listened to Ted speak about the importance of getting into an emotional state conducive to writing compelling copy, I started to compare the poetry writing and copywriting processes.
They’re similar, but different.
Let me explain.
Usually I write short poems with layers of meaning and emotion, because of course I write poems (or songs) about an experience, a moment or an event which affected me in some way. I’m baring my soul, and if I’ve touched on a universal theme in the process, then there’s a chance that readers may connect and empathise with my experience.
When I write marketing and sales copy, I write emotional and passionate words that will move, touch and inspire the prospect/reader. I set out to create that empathy on purpose.
The major difference between them is the intention.
As a poet, I write for myself. I suppose you could call it self-indulgent. I absolutely need to write. It’s a kind of purging. The words shoot out from my soul in some inexplicable, out-of-control trajectory, splattering all over the page. Sometimes I have to clean them up and make them more presentable. With a bit of luck, those who read my poem may find that it resonates with them. When I’m writing a poem, however, that’s the last thing on my mind.
With copywriting, it’s a different story. I write with the reader completely in mind. I sit down with this prospect, who has some desperate want which I intend to satisfy. I then have a conversation with this person, identify all his/her fears, hopes and expectations, and propel him/her inevitably towards taking whatever action I’m suggesting.
So, great poems create empathy in spite of the intention (or they don’t, in the case of those ones that bored you senseless at high school).
Great sales copy creates empathy because of the intention.
(Oh, and one pays more than the other.)
Remember to mind your language – and your intentions!
Wednesday, November 12. 2008
Jen and Ted's Excellent Adventure
I was thrilled to have had the opportunity to attend the Dream Information Publishing Seminar presented by my mentor, Ted Nicholas, in Sydney this weekend. (That's me and him in the photo on the left.) Ted is a gentleman and a living legend, arguably one of the best direct marketers on this planet. I met him for the first time in 2007 at Mal Emery's Silent Killer Seminar, although I'd read his information and known about him for a lot longer than that.
He ran out on stage, had us waving our arms in the air as we shouted affirmations to change our emotional states, and grooved with us to the Bee Gees.
He gave us his all over the two days. He provided phenomenal value in the depth and breadth of content, sharing his insights and thoughts not only about copywriting, but about life, health, wealth, and taxes!
I find that as a copywriter, it's vital for me to revisit regularly the essentials of emotional direct response copywriting, of which Ted is an absolute master.
Ted's enthusiasm and energy, as well as meeting and talking with other seminar attendees, reignited my excitement about copywriting and the power of compelling words. After working on a major editing project almost full time for the last nine months, it was great to be reminded of how satisfying it is to create copy and words that sell.
One subtle distinction which Ted made that really resonated with me was that sales letter copy must not only BE true, it must SEEM true. This is very much the case in a marketplace overloaded with large bold red headlines screaming promises of permanent cures and money making schemes.
The trick is to write the fine line between both.
Another great suggestion of Ted's was that sometimes a killer sales letter headline will be found among the testimonials provided by your customers.
Thank you Ted and Bethany.
And thanks also to all my fellow seminar attendees, who helped make the two days such a rewarding and memorable experience. I look forward to hearing from you and communicating soon.
In the meantime, don't forget to mind your language!
Wednesday, October 29. 2008
Who sez engineres kant spel?
When I was at college, one of the favourite sayings was 'Yesterday I couldn't spell engineer, now I are one'.
This reflected an almost universally held belief that engineers were inherently unable to communicate, spell or grasp any concept of grammar.
Engineers are regarded as the technologists, the inventors, the designers, the ideas people. They dream and scheme, design and implement, and their project deadlines are always yesterday. They burrow through data books, drink cold coffee, and scribble circuit diagrams on the backs of envelopes. They are responsible for many of the technological achievements and advancements witnessed and enjoyed by our world today.
And this would seem to be in spite of their apparent inability to communicate.
But have we fallen into the pigeon-holing trap? Are we too quick to consign engineers to the 'non-writer, non-communicator' pile?
Engineers and writers alike have been using language to communicate ever since any of them uttered the first 'mama' or 'dada'. After all, language is an intrinsic part of how we co-exist as human beings.
Perhaps engineers are not good writers because it hasn't been made important for them to know how to express complex technical concepts in simple terms.
Calculus and complex equations are the language engineers learn to use to express the world around them.
Most of the engineers I know have fantastic imaginations, a great turn of phrase and a quirky take on many aspects of this world we live in.
In fact, all the saying 'Yesterday I couldn't spell engineer, now I are one' really needs is a good editor.
Don't forget to mind your language!
This reflected an almost universally held belief that engineers were inherently unable to communicate, spell or grasp any concept of grammar.
Engineers are regarded as the technologists, the inventors, the designers, the ideas people. They dream and scheme, design and implement, and their project deadlines are always yesterday. They burrow through data books, drink cold coffee, and scribble circuit diagrams on the backs of envelopes. They are responsible for many of the technological achievements and advancements witnessed and enjoyed by our world today.
And this would seem to be in spite of their apparent inability to communicate.
But have we fallen into the pigeon-holing trap? Are we too quick to consign engineers to the 'non-writer, non-communicator' pile?
Engineers and writers alike have been using language to communicate ever since any of them uttered the first 'mama' or 'dada'. After all, language is an intrinsic part of how we co-exist as human beings.
Perhaps engineers are not good writers because it hasn't been made important for them to know how to express complex technical concepts in simple terms.
Calculus and complex equations are the language engineers learn to use to express the world around them.
Most of the engineers I know have fantastic imaginations, a great turn of phrase and a quirky take on many aspects of this world we live in.
In fact, all the saying 'Yesterday I couldn't spell engineer, now I are one' really needs is a good editor.
Don't forget to mind your language!
Sunday, October 19. 2008
I don't know what to say: writers' block vs sleeping on the job
Welcome to the world of writers everywhere.
Here I am, a wordsmith, poet, songwriter – and I'm stuck in front of every writer's nightmare: a blank screen and blinking cursor.
This website used to be just a pretty online brochure. I was very excited when Robert helped me to restructure it into a dynamic and interactive e-venue for conversation and debate – all part of the great and expanding vision for Wordsworx.
Now, only a few posts into this site's life, I have a problem. And it's this. Even though I have a list of more than 20 topic ideas, I don't know what to say!
You see, I don't want to rehash the same old topics that every 'guru' and his or her protegé have written about, such as the importance of having a conversation with your readers, the power of testimonials, how to write a press release or article, positive vs negative language, and so on.
Although these things are important, I want to offer my own insights here. And have a bit of fun while doing so.
Is writers' block real?
Or is our fertile imagination offering us a globally understood excuse for not being able to produce?
Is it just our creative self sleeping on the job?
I believe that the process of actually writing or typing words and allowing them to flow without being critical of them is a good way to nudge the sleeping creator inside and say, 'hey you, wake up, come here and give me a hand'.
The more often you write, the more readily your creative self will realise it's on duty.
By going through the physical mechanics of writing at a certain time more regularly, in a familiar and comfortable space, you will send a wake-up call to your creative self. It will snap to attention, rub the sleep from its eyes, and will delight in guiding your thoughts and your fingers along an original path.
Obviously I need to apply this practice to my blogposts! When I used to be editor of a technology magazine, I had no problem turning out an editorial each month.
Bear with me while I wake up my creative self and make her a cup of strong coffee.
And remember: mind your language!
Here I am, a wordsmith, poet, songwriter – and I'm stuck in front of every writer's nightmare: a blank screen and blinking cursor.
This website used to be just a pretty online brochure. I was very excited when Robert helped me to restructure it into a dynamic and interactive e-venue for conversation and debate – all part of the great and expanding vision for Wordsworx.
Now, only a few posts into this site's life, I have a problem. And it's this. Even though I have a list of more than 20 topic ideas, I don't know what to say!
You see, I don't want to rehash the same old topics that every 'guru' and his or her protegé have written about, such as the importance of having a conversation with your readers, the power of testimonials, how to write a press release or article, positive vs negative language, and so on.
Although these things are important, I want to offer my own insights here. And have a bit of fun while doing so.
Is writers' block real?
Or is our fertile imagination offering us a globally understood excuse for not being able to produce?
Is it just our creative self sleeping on the job?
I believe that the process of actually writing or typing words and allowing them to flow without being critical of them is a good way to nudge the sleeping creator inside and say, 'hey you, wake up, come here and give me a hand'.
The more often you write, the more readily your creative self will realise it's on duty.
By going through the physical mechanics of writing at a certain time more regularly, in a familiar and comfortable space, you will send a wake-up call to your creative self. It will snap to attention, rub the sleep from its eyes, and will delight in guiding your thoughts and your fingers along an original path.
Obviously I need to apply this practice to my blogposts! When I used to be editor of a technology magazine, I had no problem turning out an editorial each month.
Bear with me while I wake up my creative self and make her a cup of strong coffee.
And remember: mind your language!
Friday, October 3. 2008
Mark my words
Hello, my name is Jennifer Liston. Welcome to my website and blog.
Here, I'll probably post random thoughts and facts about language and its use.
(For example, did you know that there are 6,912 living languages in the world today? According to Ethnologue, Mandarin is the first language of 873 million people. English is the first language of 340 million people, and Hindi/Urdu is spoken by some 242 million people.)
I may offer tips on how to wring the best out of the words you use.
I might even suggest some ways to optimise communication messages.
As well as offering copywriting, editing and marketing services through my company Wordsworx, I am a poet.
And this is how I have come to love the power of language.
I love the challenge of using few words for maximum impact. I love how a word or phrase can inspire a myriad of emotions, depending on the reader's own experience and associations.
I have also come to realise - and am still learning - that we shape, empower and limit our own worlds mainly by the way we speak and write about our experiences, feelings, hopes and fears.
Every word we utter is creating.
So, mind your language!
Here, I'll probably post random thoughts and facts about language and its use.
(For example, did you know that there are 6,912 living languages in the world today? According to Ethnologue, Mandarin is the first language of 873 million people. English is the first language of 340 million people, and Hindi/Urdu is spoken by some 242 million people.)
I may offer tips on how to wring the best out of the words you use.
I might even suggest some ways to optimise communication messages.
As well as offering copywriting, editing and marketing services through my company Wordsworx, I am a poet.
And this is how I have come to love the power of language.
I love the challenge of using few words for maximum impact. I love how a word or phrase can inspire a myriad of emotions, depending on the reader's own experience and associations.
I have also come to realise - and am still learning - that we shape, empower and limit our own worlds mainly by the way we speak and write about our experiences, feelings, hopes and fears.
Every word we utter is creating.
So, mind your language!
